Originally Posted by 
Melbourne Park
				 
			"Stronger" doesn't really describe the differences does it ... for torsional rigidity a monocoque is the cheapest way to get there, for sure. And for a given level of torsional rigidity, its lighter too, and much cheaper to build, plus it crushes better in a crash. Plus you can roll the floor pan into all sorts of different vehicles, the new Defender being a typical example of what contemporary cost accountants have decreed. Towing though with a chassis sees the stresses by pass the "cabin" which is not subjected to the tow weight strains. 
If a chassis Defender had of been developed, street wise it would have been worse than this new monocoque one will be. And R&D cost would have been many many many times greater, because it would have been new. And IMO a version of the D3/4 concept would have been very heavy which is not a Defender hallmark and also costly. Rather than a conversion of current floorpans into something more off-road and evidently tougher. 
It's great they've created a new "Defender". And they aren't making X5s or Audi Porsches etc. ie just essentially good handling softroaders. LR are differentiated and that differentiation goes back to their core off road heritage. While I'd have liked a chassis in the new "Defender", the cost of capital for developing a new chassis platform would have provided a much lower return than using that capital for other JLR projects that are coming. So doing a chassis Defender might have wrecked the company. We've got to be happy that they did something and who knows whether for me it will provide a tow option, or something that 3rd parties will want to develop off road gear for. And I note that ARB don't seem to list gear for the current Discovery models.